בבא מציעא דף נד

הבעלים נותנין עשרים ושש. עשרים ושנים – הבעלים נותנין עשרים ושבע. בעשרים ושלש – הבעלים נותנין עשרים ושמונה. בעשרים וארבע – הבעלים נותנין עשרים ותשע.

the owner gives a payment of twenty-six dinars. Were they to enable the other person to purchase it for twenty-one dinars, the Temple treasury would incur a loss, as the principal plus one-fifth paid by the owner is greater than the payment of the other person, who must pay only the principal. Were the owner to pay only twenty for the principal and add one-fifth, the principal paid by the owner is less than the sum offered by the other person. Therefore, the owner pays the principal proposed by the other person and then adds the payment of one-fifth that he was obligated to pay based on his own offer, i.e., five dinars, for a total of twenty-six. Likewise, if the other person offers twenty-two dinars, the owner gives twenty-seven; if the other person offers twenty-three, the owner gives twenty-eight; if the other person offers twenty-four, the owner gives twenty-nine.

עשרים וחמש – הבעלים נותנין שלשים, לפי שאין מוסיפין חומש על עילוי של זה. שמע מינה חומשא מלבר. שמע מינה.

If the other person offers twenty-five dinars, the owner gives thirty, due to the fact that the owner does not add one-fifth based on the raise in the offer of this other person, but only on the principal according to his own offer. It is clear from these calculations that a principal of twenty plus an addition of one-fifth equal twenty-five dinars. Learn from it that one-fifth is calculated from without, meaning one-quarter of the value of the redeemed item. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the halakha.

כתנאי: ״ויסף חמשתו עליו״, שיהא הוא וחומשו חמשה, דברי רבי יאשיה. רבי יונתן אומר: חמישיתו חומשו של קרן.

The Gemara comments: The two sides of this dilemma are parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “And shall add unto it one-fifth part thereof” (Leviticus 27:27). This means that the item and its additional one-fifth payment will total five parts; one-fifth is calculated from without; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says: Its one-fifth means one-fifth of the principal; one-fifth is calculated from within.

איבעיא להו: חומש מעכב, או אינו מעכב? ארבעה בארבעה פריק, ואכנפשיה מוסיף חומש, אלמא חומש לא מעכב. או דלמא ארבעה בחמשה פריק, וחומש מעכב.

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does failure to pay the additional one-fifth prevent consumption outside of Jerusalem of second tithe that was redeemed, or does it not prevent consumption? The dilemma is: Is second-tithe produce worth four dinars redeemed with four dinars, and the obligation to add the payment of one-fifth is an obligation incumbent upon the owner himself? In that case, apparently, failure to pay the additional one-fifth does not prevent consumption. Or perhaps second-tithe produce worth four dinars is redeemed with five dinars, no less, and failure to pay the additional one-fifth prevents consumption.

אמר רבינא, תא שמע: הדמאי – אין לו חומש, ואין לו ביעור.

Ravina said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a mishna (Demai 1:2): For second tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], whose status is that of untithed produce by rabbinic law, there is no payment of one-fifth if the owner redeems its second tithe, and there is no obligation of the eradication of tithes after three years, as is the case with tithes taken from untithed produce.

הא קרן יש לו. מאי טעמא? קרן דמעכב בדאורייתא – איתה בדרבנן, חומש דלא מעכב בדאורייתא – ליתה בדרבנן.

Ravina explains: But by inference, there is payment of principal. Although there is no obligation to add one-fifth, second tithe separated from demai requires redemption. What is the reason for this? Apparently, concerning the principal, about which failure to pay it prevents consumption of second tithe of untithed produce by Torah law, it is also a sum that must be paid in the case of demai by rabbinic law. Concerning the payment of one-fifth, about which failure to pay it does not prevent consumption of second tithe of untithed produce by Torah law, it is not a sum that must be paid in the case of demai by rabbinic law.

לימא כתנאי: נתן את הקרן, ולא נתן את החומש, רבי אליעזר אומר: יאכל. רבי יהושע אומר: לא יאכל. אמר רבי: נראין דברי רבי אליעזר בשבת,

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the two sides of this dilemma are parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one gave payment to redeem the principal but did not give payment of the additional one-fifth, Rabbi Eliezer says: One may eat it, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may not eat it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to Shabbat, when the Sages deemed it permitted for one to eat without the additional payment, in deference to Shabbat, and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua appears correct with regard to the days of the week.

ודברי רבי יהושע בחול.

מדאמר נראין דברי רבי אליעזר בשבת, מכלל דפליגי אפילו בחול. מדאמר נראין דברי רבי יהושע בחול, מכלל דפליגי אפילו בשבת.

The Gemara infers: From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to Shabbat, by inference they disagree even with regard to the days of the week. Likewise, from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua appears correct with regard to the days of the week, by inference they disagree even with regard to Shabbat. Apparently, theirs is a fundamental dispute.

מאי לאו בהא סברא קמיפלגי: דרבי אליעזר סבר חומש לא מעכב, ורבי יהושע סבר חומש מעכב?

What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this reasoning, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that failure to pay the additional one-fifth does not prevent consumption, as redemption of the principal alone suffices; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that failure to pay the additional one-fifth prevents consumption?

אמר רב פפא: לא, דכולי עלמא חומש לא מעכב. והכא בחיישינן לפשיעותא קמיפלגי. מר סבר חיישינן לפשיעותא. ומר סבר לא חיישינן לפשיעותא.

Rav Pappa said: No, perhaps the explanation is that everyone agrees that failure to pay the additional one-fifth does not prevent consumption, and here they disagree with regard to whether we are concerned for potential negligence. One Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua, holds: We are concerned for negligence, lest one fail to pay the additional one-fifth and therefore the owner may not eat the second-tithe produce until he adds the one-fifth payment. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds: We are not concerned for negligence, and one will presumably add the one-fifth payment later.

אמר רבי יוחנן: הכל מודים בהקדש – שחילל, הואיל וגזברין תובעין אותו בשוק.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Although the tanna’im disagree with regard to second tithe, all concede with regard to consecrated property that if the one who consecrated it paid the principal and did not add one-fifth, that he successfully desacralized the produce, since the Temple treasurers demand payment from him in the marketplace, preventing any potential negligence. Therefore, he may use the property immediately.

ובהקדש לא פליגי? והתניא: נתן את הקרן, ולא נתן לו את החומש, רבי אליעזר אומר: חילל, וחכמים אומרים: לא חילל. אמר רבי: נראין דברי רבי אליעזר בהקדש,

The Gemara asks: And do they not disagree with regard to consecrated property? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: In a case where one gave payment to redeem the principal but did not give him payment of the additional one-fifth, Rabbi Eliezer says: He successfully desacralized the produce, and the Rabbis say: He did not desacralize the produce? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to consecrated property, and the statement of the Rabbis appears correct with regard to second tithe.

ודברי חכמים במעשר.

מדאמר נראין דברי רבי אליעזר בהקדש – מכלל דפליג אפילו במעשר. מדקאמר נראין דברי חכמים במעשר – מכלל דאינהו פליגי אפילו בהקדש!

The Gemara infers: From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to consecrated property, by inference they disagree even with regard to second tithe. Likewise, from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that the statement of the Rabbis appears correct with regard to second tithe, by inference they disagree even with regard to consecrated property. This contradicts Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that there is no dispute with regard to consecrated property.

אלא אי אתמר, הכי אתמר: אמר רבי יוחנן: הכל מודים בשבת בהקדש שחילל. חדא – דכתיב: ״וקראת לשבת ענג״. ועוד, הואיל וגזברין תובעין אותו בשוק.

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All concede that concerning Shabbat with regard to consecrated property that he successfully desacralized the property. One reason for this halakha is as it is written: “And you shall call Shabbat a delight” (Isaiah 58:13). The Sages sought to facilitate that delight in Shabbat by ruling leniently. And furthermore, it is desacralized without payment of the additional one-fifth, since the Temple treasurers demand payment from him in the marketplace.

אמר רמי בר חמא: הרי אמרו הקדש אינו מתחלל על הקרקע, דרחמנא אמר: ״ונתן הכסף וקם לו״. חומשו מהו שיתחלל על הקרקע?

§ Rami bar Ḥama says: The Sages said that consecrated property cannot be desacralized with land, as the Merciful One states with regard to the redemption of a consecrated field: “And he will give the money and it will be assured to him” (Leviticus 27:19), indicating that redemption is accomplished with money. The question is with regard to payment of its additional one-fifth: What is the halakha in terms of the possibility that it will be desacralized with land?

תרומה אינה משתלמת אלא מן החולין. דרחמנא אמר: ״ונתן לכהן את הקדש״, דבר הראוי להיות קדש. חומשה מהו שישתלם שלא מן החולין?

If a non-priest unwittingly ate teruma, his debt can be repaid to the priest only with non-sacred property, not with teruma, as the Merciful One states: “And if a man eats that which is sacred unwittingly…and he shall give that which is sacred to a priest” (Leviticus 22:14), from which it is derived that repayment must be with an item fit to become sacred, i.e., a non-sacred item, not teruma, which cannot be consecrated again. The question is with regard to payment of its additional one-fifth: What is the halakha in terms of the possibility that it will be repaid not from non-sacred items, but from teruma?

מעשר אין מתחלל על האסימון. דרחמנא אמר: ״וצרת הכסף בידך״, לרבות כל דבר שיש עליו צורה. חומשו מהו שיתחלל על האסימון?

Second-tithe produce cannot be desacralized with an unminted coin, as the Merciful One states: “And you shall bind up [vetzarta] the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpret as serving to include any item that has the imprint [tzura] of a coin upon it for desacralization, not an unminted coin. The question is with regard to payment of its additional one-fifth: What is the halakha in terms of the possibility that it will be desacralized with an unminted coin?

אתגלגל מלתא ומטא לקמיה דרבא. אמר להו: אמר קרא ״עליו״, לרבות חומשו כמותו.

Rami bar Ḥama was unable to resolve this series of dilemmas, and the matter proceeded and came before Rava, who said to the people who related the dilemmas to him: The verse states: “And shall add unto it one-fifth part thereof” (Leviticus 27:27), which serves to include its additional one-fifth within the same legal status as that of its principal.

אמר רבינא: אף אנן נמי תנינא, הגונב תרומה ולא אכלה – משלם תשלומי כפל דמי תרומה. אכלה – משלם שני קרנים וחומש. קרן וחומש מן החולין,

Ravina said: We too learn this in a mishna (Terumot 6:4): One who steals teruma and did not partake of it pays a payment of double the principal at the price of the teruma, as a thief pays double the value of the item that he stole. Both payments are calculated based on the price of teruma, which is lower than the price of non-sacred food, as the demand for it is lower because it is eaten only by priests. If the thief ate it unwittingly, he pays a payment worth the value of two principals and adds one-fifth in this manner: He pays one principal and one-fifth from non-sacred items, like any non-priest who partakes of teruma, and with regard to the other principal, he pays it according to the price of teruma.

והקרן דמי תרומה.

שמע מינה חומשו כמותו. שמע מינה.

Learn from it that the legal status of its one-fifth payment is like that of the principal itself, in that it must be paid from non-sacred property. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that it is so.

אמר רבא, גבי גזל כתיב: ״וחמשתיו יסף עליו״. ותנן: נתן לו את הקרן, ונשבע לו על החומש – הרי זה מוסיף חומש על חומש,

§ Rava said: With regard to robbery, it is written: “And he shall restore the robbed item that he robbed…and he shall add its one-fifth payments to it” (Leviticus 5:23–24), and we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 103a): If the robber gave the robbery victim the principal and took a false oath to him concerning the additional one-fifth payment, asserting that he had already paid it, then the additional one-fifth is considered a new principal obligation. This robber adds an additional one-fifth payment apart from the additional one-fifth payment about which he had taken a false oath. If he then takes a false oath concerning the second one-fifth payment, he is assessed an additional one-fifth payment for that oath, until the principal, i.e., the additional one-fifth payment about which he has most recently taken the false oath, is reduced to less than the value of one peruta.

עד שיתמעט הקרן פחות משוה פרוטה.

גבי תרומה כתיב: ״איש כי יאכל קדש בשגגה ויסף חמשיתו עליו״. ותנן: האוכל תרומה בשוגג – משלם קרן וחומש. אחד האוכל ואחד השותה ואחד הסך. אחד תרומה טהורה,

Rava continues: With regard to teruma too, it is written: “If a man eats that which is sacred unwittingly, then he shall add its one-fifth payment to it” (Leviticus 22:14), and as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 6:1): One who partakes of teruma unwittingly pays the principal and an additional one-fifth. This is the halakha whether it concerns one who partakes of teruma, or one who drinks it, or one who applies oil to himself; or whether it is ritually pure teruma or ritually impure teruma. He pays its one-fifth payment, and if he partook of that one-fifth, he pays one-fifth of its one-fifth. Rava concludes: While with regard to second tithe, it is neither written in the Torah, nor taught in a mishna, nor raised as a dilemma before us by the amora’im.

ואחד תרומה טמאה – משלם חומשה וחומשא דחומשא. ואילו גבי מעשר, לא מכתב כתיב, ולא מיתנא תנא, ולא איבעויי איבעיא לן.

גבי הקדש כתיב: ״ואם המקדיש יגאל את ביתו ויסף חמישית כסף ערכך״. ותנן: הפודה את הקדשו – מוסיף חומש. חומשא תנן, חומשא דחומשא לא תנן. מאי?

The Gemara pursues a similar line of inquiry: With regard to consecrated property it is written: “And if he who consecrated it will redeem his house, then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation unto it, and it shall be his” (Leviticus 27:15), and we learned in a mishna (55b): One who redeems his own consecrated property that he consecrated himself adds one-fifth to the sum of the redemption. We learned one-fifth; we did not learn one-fifth of the one-fifth. What is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: With regard to teruma it is written: “Then he shall add,” and with regard to consecrated property too, isn’t it written: “Then he shall add”? Apparently, in a case of consecrated property one also pays one-fifth of the one-fifth.

גבי תרומה כתיב ״ויסף״, גבי קדש נמי הא כתיב ״ויסף״.

או דלמא גבי תרומה כתיב ״ויסף״: אי שקלת ליה לויו ד״ויסף״ ושדית ליה על ״חמשיתו״, הוה ליה ״חמישיתיו״. גבי הקדש כתיב ״ויסף חמישית״:

Or perhaps we should learn the halakha as follows: With regard to teruma it is written: “Then he shall add [veyasaf ],” and the halakha of one-fifth of the one-fifth is derived in this manner: If you take the letter vav of the word veyasaf, and cast it to the end of the word ḥamishito, its one-fifth payment, it then becomes the plural ḥamishitav, its one-fifths payments, as it is written in the case of robbery, indicating that one pays one-fifth of one-fifth. With regard to consecrated property, it is written: “Then he shall add [veyasaf ] one-fifth [ḥamishit].” Even when you take the vav of veyasaf and cast it to the end of the word ḥamishit, ultimately it is only ḥamishito, in the singular, indicating payment of only a single one-fifth. What is the halakha?

אף על גב דכי שקלת ליה לויו ד״ויסף״ ושדית ליה על ״חמישית״, סוף סוף הוה ליה ״חמשתו״.

ותיפוק ליה דהוה ליה הקדש שני. ואמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: אהקדש ראשון מוסיף חומש, על הקדש שני אין מוסיף חומש! אמר ליה רב פפי לרבינא:

The Gemara suggests: And why not derive the halakha of consecrated property from the fact that it is tantamount to a second consecration. When one redeems consecrated property with another item, although that item is thereby consecrated, not all the halakhot of consecrated property apply to it. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: For redemption of first consecration one adds one-fifth; for redemption of second consecration one does not add one-fifth. Rav Pappi said to Ravina that this is what Rava said: The legal status of the additional one-fifth is like that of initial consecration, not like that of second consecration.

הכי אמר רבא: חומש כתחילת הקדש דמי.

מאי הוה עלה? אמר רב טביומי משמיה דאביי: אמר קרא ״ויסף חמישית כסף ערכך״, מקיש חומשו לכסף ערכו. מה כסף ערכו מוסיף חומש – אף

The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this dilemma? Rav Tavyumei said in the name of Abaye that the verse states with regard to one who redeems a house that he consecrated: “Then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation unto it” (Leviticus 27:15). The Torah juxtaposes its payment of one-fifth to the money of its valuation, i.e., the consecrated house: Just as when redeeming the money of its valuation one adds one-fifth, so too, when redeeming the money of its one-fifth, one adds one-fifth as well.

כסף חומשו נמי מוסיף חומש.

גופא, אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: על הקדש ראשון מוסיף חומש, ועל הקדש שני אין מוסיף חומש. אמר רבא: מאי טעמא דרבי יהושע בן לוי, אמר קרא:

§ The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: For redemption of first consecration one adds one-fifth; for redemption of second consecration one does not add one-fifth. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? It is as the verse states: “And if he who consecrated it will redeem his house, then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation unto it” (Leviticus 27:15), from which it may be inferred that when he who consecrates the house redeems it, he adds one-fifth, but this is not so with regard to one who associates an item with an existing sanctity, as in this case, where the sanctity of the one-fifth is derived from its association with the sanctity of the house.

״ואם המקדיש יגאל את ביתו״. המקדיש, ולא המתפיס.

תני תנא קמיה דרבי אלעזר: ״ואם בבהמה הטמאה ופדה בערכך״, מה בהמה טמאה מיוחדת, שתחילתה הקדש וכולה לשמים – ומועלין בה,

The Gemara relates that the tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rabbi Elazar. It is written: “And if it is of a non-kosher animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation” (Leviticus 27:27). This verse teaches that just as a non-kosher animal that was consecrated is unique in that it is an example of initial consecration and it is devoted entirely to Heaven, as neither the owner nor anyone else may derive benefit from it after its consecration, and one violates the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property by using it after it was consecrated, so too, with regard to any item that both undergoes initial consecration and is devoted entirely to Heaven, one violates the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property by using it after it was consecrated.

אף כל שתחילתה הקדש וכולה לשמים – מועלין בה.

אמר ליה רבי אלעזר לתנא: בשלמא ״כולה לשמים״ – למעוטי קדשים קלים, כיון דאית להו לבעלים בגוייהו – לית בהו מעילה. אלא ״תחילת הקדש״ למעוטי מאי?

Rabbi Elazar said to the tanna: Granted, the statement: It is devoted entirely to Heaven, serves to exclude offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., peace-offerings. Since the owners have a share in them, as they may partake of those offerings, they are not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property. But what does the mention of initial consecration in the baraita serve to exclude? Is it that initial consecration is subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property and ultimate consecration is not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property? Even the property consecrated last in a series of redemptions is full-fledged consecrated property. Perhaps it is with regard to the matter of the payment of one-fifth that you are saying this, and it is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? The tanna said to him: Yes, that is what I am saying.

תחילת הקדש הוא דאית ביה מעילה, סוף הקדש לית ביה מעילה?! דלמא לענין חומש קאמרת, וכרבי יהושע בן לוי? אמר ליה: אין, הכי קאמינא.

אמר ליה רב אשי לרבינא: בהמה טמאה בתחילת הקדש איתה?

Apropos that baraita, Rav Ashi said to Ravina: Is it so that a non-kosher animal is subject to initial consecration